i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION

No. 04-08-00557- CV THE O F F ICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ,

Appellant

v . Donald Eug ene CA RT ER , Appellee Fr om the 224th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 1993-EM- 500955 Honora ble J oe F razier B rown, Jr., J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elin i, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 8, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED I n November

2007, the trial court signe d an order aff irming a child support arr ear ag e in the amount of $28,504 and or dering g arnishment of D onald Carter ’s wag es in the amount of $200 per month in satisfaction of the arr ear ag e. Carter filed a Motion for New T rial and a Motion to R ecove r Child S upport Pa y

m en t s Made in Excess of Child Support. The trial court he ard Car ter’s motion for ne w trial on January 28, 2008. The Attorney Gene ral’s O ffice (“the AG”) was not re prese nted04

- 08

- 00 55 7- CV

- 2- a t th e he a ri ng , f

oll ow ingwh ic h th e tr ia l court sig ne d a n O rd e r o f D e fa

ult , o rd e ri ng that th e “ c hil d

su pp or t a rr e a ra g e be te rm inate d” a nd tha t Ca rt e r “ re c ov e r p a y

me nts ma de in e xce ss o f $ 20 0. ” Th is restric ted appe al by

the AG e nsued. We reve rse a nd rema nd. DI SCU SSIO N A r e s t r i c t e d

a p p e a l ( 1 ) m u s t b e b r o u g h t w i t h i n s i x m o n t h s o f t h e d a t e o f

j u d g m e n t ; ( 2 ) b y a party to the suit who did not participate in the trial; and ( 3) the e rror complained of must be appa rent from the f

ace of the re cord. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .1 (c ); Norman Commc’s v . Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W .2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (per curia m). The only

iss u e in this appeal is whether there is error appar ent on the fa ce of

the re cord. In its first issue on appea l , t h e AG a sserts the trial c ourt’s judgm e n t mu s t b e r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e n o r e p o r te r ’ s r e c o r d w a s ma d e o f th e h e a r in g th a t led to the defa ult judgment. We ag ree . Texas Family

Code section 105.003 plac es an a ffirma tive duty on the trial cour

t to ensure that the cour t reporte r make s a re cord o f p r o cee dings involving pare nt-child rela tionships. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 10 5. 00 3( c ) ( Ve rn on 20 08 ); Stubbs v. Stubbs , 685 S.W .2d 643, 645-46 (Te x . 1985) (i nte rp re tin g pr e de c e sso r t o s e c tio n 1 05 .0 03 ); Gar za v. G ar za , 2 1 7 S. W. 3 d

5 3 8 , 5 5 6 n . 2 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.). Unless waived by the par ties with the trial court’s pe rmission, the fa ilure to make suc h a re cord a mounts to reversible e rror . See T EX . F AM . C O D E ANN . § 1 05 .0 03 (c ); Stubbs , 685 S.W .2d at 646. Her e, a rec ord was not made of the hearing on Carter ’s motion for new tria l or his motion t o stay , and nothing in the rec ord indicates the parties wa ived the

rec ord. Ac cording ly , reve rsible er ror is appa

rent fr om the fac e of the rec ord bef ore this cour

t.04

- 08

- 00 55 7- CV

- 3- CO NC LU SION We r e ve rs e the tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud g me nt a nd re ma nd the c a

us e fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. B e c a

us e our resolution of t he AG’s first issue is dispositi ve, we do not addre ss the AG’s r emaining issues on appea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1. Kar en Ang elini , J ustice